00:00:00 --- log: started forth/15.03.18 00:54:41 --- quit: darkf (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 00:55:05 --- join: darkf (~darkf___@unaffiliated/darkf) joined #forth 00:55:48 --- join: Bahman (~Bahman@85.133.140.132) joined #forth 01:16:11 --- join: nighty-_ (~nighty@hokuriku.rural-networks.com) joined #forth 01:30:33 --- quit: nighty-_ (Remote host closed the connection) 01:39:58 --- quit: mnemnion_ (Remote host closed the connection) 01:40:25 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@c-98-210-219-91.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 01:44:45 --- quit: mnemnion (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) 02:03:27 ASau, saw your conversation last night. Sounded like your complaints about forth's appropriateness would also apply generally to any concatenative or zero-point language, no? Or is there something forth-specific about your criticism? 02:14:15 --- join: true-grue (~grue@95-27-191-155.broadband.corbina.ru) joined #forth 02:30:36 --- join: nighty-_ (~nighty@hokuriku.rural-networks.com) joined #forth 03:00:30 --- quit: nighty^ (Remote host closed the connection) 03:06:03 --- quit: impomatic (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 03:06:45 --- quit: Bahman (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 03:18:42 --- join: Bahman (~Bahman@85.133.140.132) joined #forth 03:22:56 --- quit: mark4 (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 03:56:02 --- quit: Bahman (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 03:56:39 --- quit: xpoqp (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 04:08:15 --- join: Bahman (~Bahman@85.133.140.132) joined #forth 04:28:36 --- join: vsg1990 (~vsg1990@cpe-67-241-148-119.buffalo.res.rr.com) joined #forth 05:40:28 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@c-98-210-219-91.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 05:43:54 --- quit: Bahman (Quit: Ave atque vale) 05:45:24 --- quit: mnemnion (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) 07:22:36 --- join: xpoqp (~xpo@unaffiliated/xpoqz) joined #forth 07:28:45 --- join: johnmark_ (~johnmark@c-73-51-235-57.hsd1.il.comcast.net) joined #forth 07:33:33 --- join: xyh (~xyh@2001:250:3002:5550:6ea1:cc0f:bcb2:b187) joined #forth 07:34:09 --- quit: ASau (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 07:34:48 --- join: ASau (~user@46.115.26.254) joined #forth 07:35:08 --- join: Zarutian (~Adium@168-110-22-46.fiber.hringdu.is) joined #forth 07:48:48 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@c-98-210-219-91.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 07:53:13 --- quit: mnemnion (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 07:54:24 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@c-98-210-219-91.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 08:13:19 --- join: bandrami (~weldon@triband-mum-120.60.241.143.mtnl.net.in) joined #forth 08:24:06 --- quit: darkf (Quit: Leaving) 09:12:01 --- join: nighty^ (~nighty@static-68-179-124-161.ptr.terago.net) joined #forth 09:17:46 ASau, then is there any reason to use Forth at all? (besides academical ones) 09:19:52 --- quit: bandrami (Quit: leaving) 10:03:02 ionthas_: for realtime response in systems that are constrained in memory (due to radiation hardening), power or speed. 10:05:05 Zarutian: so if I understood correcty space applications is one of the strongest points of forth 10:06:32 indeed, industrial robotics too iirc 10:10:43 --- join: kumul (~mool@adsl-72-50-85-212.prtc.net) joined #forth 10:11:41 thanks Zarutian. good to know :) 10:15:27 thx tangentstorm, I am using envy code now :P 10:15:51 http://the-little-language-designer.github.io/ 10:15:58 http://the-little-language-designer.github.io/cicada-nymph/overview.html 10:23:39 --- join: impomatic (~chatzilla@61.205.125.91.dyn.plus.net) joined #forth 10:40:12 --- quit: xyh (Remote host closed the connection) 11:00:46 --- join: xyh (~xyh@2001:250:3002:5550:6ea1:cc0f:bcb2:b187) joined #forth 11:22:48 isforth.com and forthfreak.net appear to be down. 11:29:17 --- join: mark4 (~mark4@38.122.200.194) joined #forth 11:30:05 --- quit: xyh (Remote host closed the connection) 11:37:30 --- join: xyh (~xyh@2001:250:3002:5550:6ea1:cc0f:bcb2:b187) joined #forth 11:42:23 --- quit: Zarutian (Quit: Leaving.) 11:42:51 --- join: bedah (~bedah@g224156157.adsl.alicedsl.de) joined #forth 11:56:08 --- join: MrMobius_ (~MrMobius@149.160.204.55) joined #forth 12:01:58 --- quit: kumul (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) 12:41:13 --- join: MrMobius__ (~MrMobius@149.160.204.55) joined #forth 12:42:03 --- quit: MrMobius_ (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) 12:51:31 --- quit: vsg1990 (Quit: Leaving) 12:58:29 --- quit: Vendan (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) 12:59:12 --- join: Vendan (Vendan@2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe70:5b6b) joined #forth 13:19:02 --- quit: xyh (Remote host closed the connection) 13:30:35 --- quit: impomatic (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 13:31:14 --- join: impomatic (~chatzilla@61.205.125.91.dyn.plus.net) joined #forth 13:46:02 --- quit: MrMobius__ (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 13:52:02 --- quit: nighty-_ (Quit: Disappears in a puff of smoke) 13:59:51 --- join: xyh (~xyh@2001:250:3002:5550:6ea1:cc0f:bcb2:b187) joined #forth 14:00:59 --- join: nighty-_ (~nighty@hokuriku.rural-networks.com) joined #forth 14:05:57 crc: about retro & parable, if you do not wish to use something like "a[b]c" to name things; and you want to let "[ a b c ]" and "[a b c]" to denote the same things. 14:05:57 then, IMO, it will be rational to read all barckets (){}() as words, even when they are NOT separated by spaces. 14:07:07 That would preclude using brackets in function names though, which I would prefer not to give up 14:08:28 unless you have a special quote character to prefix fancy word/symbol names with heh 14:08:59 That makes the parser more complex 14:09:20 There's also the fact that [ ] are words in Retro 14:09:56 (In parable, they are understood as part of the syntax and handled by the compiler, so I could do this in parable more easily) 14:13:03 I see only two :: "(josephus)" and "[ip]", but there are much more things like "[ a b c ]" 14:13:17 so, it is just a little suggestion :) 14:17:11 --- quit: true-grue (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 14:21:45 --- quit: Vendan (Excess Flood) 14:22:15 --- join: Vendan (Vendan@2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe70:5b6b) joined #forth 14:22:23 proteusguy: yes, notation problem applies in general to all other non-conventional languages. 14:22:23 crc: is you blog open ? can one views the source code of your blog ? :: http://www.forthworks.com/ 14:22:23 what blog engine do you use ? 14:23:00 The blog on forthworks.com runs on SquareSpace 14:23:13 proteusguy: so, if unusual language is going to be useful, it has to compensate unusual notation with some benefitial properties. 14:23:26 Consider Erlang. 14:23:29 My older blog was written in Retro, and most of the code is in the examples packaged in retro 14:23:47 crc: older blog? 14:24:20 http://projects.forthworks.com/dev/corpse/all 14:24:58 great 14:25:38 I used the older one from 2010 through 2014. I switched to SquareSpace around this time in 2014 14:26:13 (The old blog is still running in retro) 14:27:41 proteusguy: Erlang is really unusual notation for people, some mixture of Prolog and ML, both quite unusual too, yet Erlang compensates it with giving people quite powerful ways to program parallel applications. 14:28:10 proteusguy: "concatenative" languages should give something in return too. 14:28:41 proteusguy: yet I don't see what they can give. 14:29:13 Direct access to Krivine machine? 14:29:20 That's hardly interesting. 14:30:07 You can have better syntax on top of it. E.g. that of O'Caml, which is still unusual, though definitely more convenient. 14:30:21 --- mode: ChanServ set +v crc 14:30:26 --- quit: joneshf-laptop (Remote host closed the connection) 14:30:30 --- mode: ChanServ set +o crc 14:30:50 --- topic: set to 'Forth Programming | logged by clog at http://bit.ly/91toWN | http://forthworks.com/standards/DPANS/ | www.greenarraychips.com' by crc 14:31:02 ionthas_: no, there's no reason to use Forth at all. 14:31:19 --- join: joneshf-laptop (~joneshf@98.208.35.89) joined #forth 14:31:57 ionthas_: constrained systems are better programmed in other languages, especially when there're real-time requirements. 14:32:37 ionthas_: space applications are definitely not the strongest points. 14:32:39 --- join: ehaliewicz (~user@50-0-50-238.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com) joined #forth 14:33:18 ionthas_: what you see is holdouts that exist due to accidental historical ties in astronomy. 14:33:52 --- mode: ChanServ set -o crc 14:36:17 ionthas_: the argument follows the line "accounting applications is one of the strongest points of COBOL". 14:36:53 Yes, due to historical reasons, there still exist applications in COBOL. 14:37:10 There exist even companies hiring COBOL programmers right now. 14:38:32 asau seriously if you keep discouraging every single person that comes in here im going to applyu the second ban i have evern put on this channel 14:39:54 * xyh is viewing it as a ceremony 14:40:18 crc: I know you use Fasm before, your implementation tech switch to VM then. do you have any reviews about Fasm ? ( any criticisms on Fasm ? ) or about the implementation tech ? ( if you are busy some links would be ok ) 14:41:39 the only critisism i have for fasm is that its a 248765239875689432 line asm source file with 3 commends and i just a HUGE wall of text... other than that i hear it is pretty good :) 14:47:45 ASau, concatenative languages pretty obviously provide some rather strong capabilities. Hard to imagine a language style that can more easily create a DSL for a particular application while also being extremely lightweight to implement. Look at postscript and virtual machine implementations such as the JVM and python vms. All implemented very much in the forth model. 14:48:18 ionthas_: syntax of forth-like language, reveals the order of computations. 14:48:18 for example, to transform normal lisp code to CPS, is like to transform them to forth-like syntax. 14:48:18 some languages also have designed such syntax, for example, the threading macro "->" in clojure, and "~>" in racket :: http://www.greghendershott.com/rackjure/ 14:50:10 proteusguy: ability to create lightweight DSL hardly counts as strong these days. 14:50:13 ASau, "non-conventional" sounds like a pretty meaningless term as well. Sounds like you mean any non-C-like non-imperative language. Again a very weak point that isn't falsafiable or useful. 14:51:12 --- quit: nighty-_ (Quit: Disappears in a puff of smoke) 14:51:21 ASau, funny - it seems that DSLs are what all the cool Ruby kids are on about these days. Being able to create your own syntax that fits the specific context of your user's mental model has been and will always be an extremely valuable point of expressiveness that improves program correctness and usability. 14:52:28 --- join: MrMobius_ (~MrMobius@c-68-45-49-174.hsd1.nj.comcast.net) joined #forth 14:52:37 This is more like hitting the same wall. 14:53:29 I'm not sure I'm talking with the same ASau as before. Typically his opinions were better rooted on some formal theory or concepts instead of pure personal preference. You do seem to be trolling here which isn't what I expect from you. 14:54:08 There exist indications that what we call "imperative style" fits the way humans think better than anything else. 14:54:53 I have observed how newcomers tend to cram imperative style into functional and logic programming languages. 14:54:57 --- join: nighty-_ (~nighty@hokuriku.rural-networks.com) joined #forth 14:55:33 No, unfortunately, it is usually independent of earlier background. 14:55:55 ASau, for example? That's actually quite counter to my experience. Declarative style (akin to SQL) seems to better fit human thought than imperative. It's just that imperative is the easiest to implement as a language. Doesn't mean that's how people best think about their abstractions. 14:56:41 Look around and you'll see that most programmers take SQL only as interface to databases. 14:57:08 They don't write complex queries where declarative style matters. 14:57:30 Only rare DBAs and data scientists do that. 14:57:47 Look around and you'll see that most programmers write in java or C#. Has zero to do with the appropriateness or superiority of the language and everything to do with how people are introduced to programming. 14:57:50 Most others tend to introduce OO view via ORM. 14:59:13 mark4 & crc & tangentstorm & ASau ^-^ I will be teaching assembly language in my school (begin from next week), I will teach students how to implement a simple interpreter of a forth-like language in Fasm. do you have any suggestions or ideas ? readings ? links ? 14:59:39 C# is rarely taught in schools, and using Java on Windows is not a big problem. 15:00:10 xyh: I suggest to stop wasting students' time and do tasks where assembler is really needed or wanted. 15:00:42 xyh i wish my isforth site was up. the sources might give you inspiration 15:01:17 So that at least they get the idea that assembler is sometimes useful, 15:01:32 mark4: I can help you to do a mirror on Github 15:01:40 --- quit: MrMobius_ (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) 15:01:41 rather than the idea how stupid their TA is to teach assembler when they have tools to use something saner. 15:01:58 xyh i actually prefer not to github it :) 15:02:05 i just need to reinstate my domain registration 15:02:18 i LIKE the fact that my forth is co-hosted on a forth inc network :P 15:02:33 ASau, most languages, at least the well designed ones, have their strengths and weaknesses based on the architectural drivers that guided their design and implementation. forth's are actually some of the best documented ones. I'm surprised that you can't appreciate them. Doesn't mean that forth is the most approrpriate language for most tasks but it clearly has its domain. It's too bad you don't seem to be able to understand 15:02:33 how to apply it if you are the maintainer of a forth language project in the BSD world. You certainly must think forth to code forth. That's true of all good languages. 15:03:14 mark4: I remember you do not like github (but still, I am just trying to persuade you again) 15:03:38 heh 15:03:51 i might put my AVR forth(s) up there 15:03:55 proteusguy: While all languages required to "think" in them for good code, they don't requires self-discipline to write any functional code. 15:04:02 but isforth is going to stay where it is :) 15:04:32 asau this channel was created as an encouragment for people to learn and use forth. if they never use it professionally and only as a hobby thats STILL good 15:04:44 ASau, c.f. lisp, scheme, haskell, et al. 15:05:04 discouraging every language except c++ and what ever else you hold dear to your heart is counterproductive 15:05:06 proteusguy: You don't need to think in Scheme or Lisp to program in them. 15:05:19 thats the entire problem with them 15:05:25 "you dont need to think" 15:05:33 thats the problem with C too. most people writing it dont think 15:05:35 proteusguy: certainly, you don't need to invest a lot of self-discipling to write code that works. 15:05:37 forth encourages you to think 15:05:52 no tool will ever guarantee the wielder is competent. no useful tool, at least. 15:06:13 any language that does not allow you to shoot yourself in the foot is a bad one... agreed 15:06:14 and all useful (sharp) tools require care and skill to use well to good effect. 15:06:18 ASau, wow - if you ever want to be able to read your lisp or get it working in a maintainable way you sure as hell better know how to think in that way. 15:06:25 proteusguy: most people never use call/cc and many people don't use generic functions either. 15:06:34 "unix was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things because that would stop you from doing clever things" 15:06:43 you can shoot yourself in the foot in any lang. just in different ways. 15:06:45 the difference is that forth encourages GOOD practices, c demands bad ones 15:07:07 proteusguy: now you fall into "no, you" argument style. :) 15:07:10 ASau, I've always been able to write useful code faster and easier in forth-like languages than lisp. I know this is true of many people. 15:07:21 i disagree. there are good things about c, as well as bad. same with forth. anything. 15:07:28 proteusguy: practice shows that people write functional code relatively easy in Scheme. 15:07:30 : min 2dup < if begin nip ; : max 2dup < until drop then ; 15:07:31 c does not demand bad things, imo 15:07:35 i think i did them right lol 15:07:41 very clever definitions but bad form 15:07:47 proteusguy: and Lisp gives even better access to imperative features. 15:08:03 mark4, your bias against C doesn't make forth any better. C , used properly, is simply a portable assembly language. If you need a portable assembly language use C. If not then don't. 15:08:15 proteusguy, absolutely! 15:08:41 its very difficult to write GOOD c but that does not mean there are no good c coders 15:08:42 ASau, if you're using a lot of imperative features in list then you're doing it badly. 15:09:39 proteusguy: (loop for e in list collect (f e)) ; is it functional or imperative? 15:10:52 forth is best used when portability is not the primary concern but maximum control over the target environment and exposing a DSL that best fits the context of the task at hand are critical. The trade-off for lack of direct platform independence is that it's so damn quick to reimplement and bootstrap into a new platform makes the overhead inherent in platform indepdendence unwarranted. 15:11:02 mark4: template T min(const T &a, const T&b) {if (a < b) return a; else return b;} 15:11:42 proteusguy: this is why i wanted an "arm demo board" forth - i wanted to use it like a bus pirate (http://dangerousprototypes.com/docs/Bus_Pirate) 15:11:43 mark4: note that it doesn't require writing another definition just in order to take "min" of two dates if encoded in records. :) 15:12:13 ASau, it's imperative and generally indicative of missing a better code style in lisp for any reasonably complex feature. 15:12:22 but w/o some custom firmware - i wanted something i could interactively explore new chips, tweak voltages, do computation and build more complex words for things like bus timings or protocol interactions 15:12:47 the avr was a little underpowered but might work too 15:13:08 proteusguy: how does it differ from (mapcar #'f list) except in notation? 15:13:38 bluekelp, there are some bare metal forths for RaspberryPi as I recall. 15:14:19 asau and people who just go with the canned api do get the work done but they know fuck all about how to implement one 15:14:25 for people who want to learn.... forth 15:14:32 ASau, explicit iteration is not as easy to compose as functional style expressions. That is the sole justification of lisp. 15:14:35 yeah that would work. i got a bug up my butt that i wanted to get back into asm and write my own :) 15:14:47 months later i still don't have one working ;D 15:16:41 --- quit: impomatic (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 15:16:44 proteusguy: (loop for e in l collecting (f1 e) into a1 collecting (f2 e) into a2 finally (return (values a1 a2))) 15:16:55 bluekelp, https://github.com/organix/pijFORTHos http://pygmy.utoh.org/riscy/ http://eddiem.com/micros/sam7forth/armforth.html all barebones ARM forths. 15:17:29 proteusguy: how does that differ from previous and why is it imperative rather than declarative? 15:17:53 ASau, debating one or two lines of code is pointless. Good lisp code uses imperative structure sparingly if at all. You see a lot of looping and such in lisp and you'll find someone who doesn't understand the language. period. 15:18:01 proteusguy: why "mapcar" is not explicit iteration? 15:19:10 ASau, if you want a multi-paradigm language go with C++. lisp really isn't. 15:19:59 I have seen a lot of CL code myself, and I have to say that unlike your expectations good CL code does not demand getting rid of setf. 15:20:51 "good CL code" has generally been an oxymoron in my experience... but that's a subject for a different chatroom. 15:21:39 Anyway, going one step back and returning to SQL. 15:21:48 how about forth? 15:22:28 What makes you think that "select x from t where x < 10" differs from "(loop for e in l when (< e 10) collect e)"? 15:23:17 This is approximately how majority of programmers view DBMS. 15:23:22 See all this NoSQL hype. 15:24:13 I don't think that. But then you're just demonstrating an imperative declaration and not using SQL expressiveness. Actually most SQL requires joins and groupings. 15:25:28 In all my experience people who wrote the code that you refers to as "most SQL" were specially trained people. 15:25:33 --- join: impomatic (~chatzilla@61.205.125.91.dyn.plus.net) joined #forth 15:26:14 On average they earned 50-200% higher than programmers. 15:26:28 In my experience programmers are specially trained people. 15:26:52 mark4 is correct re: fasm. The source is a mess. But it works well, and has a decent macro system. The message board was very active and helpful when I last used it. 15:27:05 Nah - look at your PHP/MySQL coders and such. Any useful database requires most questions to use joins. 15:27:17 I mean that among programmers people who wrote the code that you refer to as "most SQL" are special. 15:27:35 If I was doing an x86/x86-64 project I'd use it again. 15:28:11 DBA's are exceedingly rare in most development groups these days. Most of the SQL is written by regular programmers and business analysts to do their adhoc reporting. 15:28:28 * ASau has problem looking at php/mysql since last time he has seen mysql was version 4-something in 2006. 15:28:54 ASau: may I invite you to write complete article on criticism about forth-like languages ? 15:28:54 and also on my specific implementation of a interpreter of a forth-like language ? 15:28:54 after then, you will also be able to point someone to the article, when doing criticism during a discussion. 15:29:09 In fact for the organizations that do have DBA's, they're rarely the ones who wrte the SQL. I think you're referring to the bad old days when people built apps on top of giant stacks of stored procedures. 15:30:43 crc i have nothing bad to say about fasm, they even have an arm version, something nasm does not have 15:30:56 but HPA probably doesnt do much arm dev or it would :) 15:31:11 HPA ? 15:31:31 h. peter. anvin i think is how he spells his name 15:31:38 syslinux author 15:31:43 plus numerous other thngs :) 15:31:49 I see 15:32:05 he is the min dev on the nasm assembler i built isforth with 15:32:07 I've not used nasm in a very long time. I do still occasionally dabble with fasm. 15:34:39 xyh: I think that the number of comments on LtU demonstrates very well how much interest anything Forth-like is going to draw. 15:35:22 xyh: I don't think that rewriting what I have written here into article format improves anything. 15:36:25 * xyh willing to be another "great" three-letter-initialed programmer 15:37:48 ASau: a well formated article will surely be needed IMO 15:38:37 Who is the intended audience? 15:39:49 LtU? 15:40:20 Lambda the Ultimate 15:40:21 ASau: maybe me and my friends and my students. (but actually I think when you post an article on web, the whole world is audience.) 15:40:49 The whole world cannot be intended audience. 15:41:18 ok, just the first three class of people. 15:41:28 * classes 15:41:31 If the latter includes you, your friends and your students, then you don't need any article. 15:43:36 I need, for my friends are all around (although not many), and my knowledge is very limited. 15:44:41 Get more knowledge then. :) 15:46:12 The important fact is that in order to acquire more knowledge 15:46:18 you don't need to learn writing _any_ programming languange 15:46:25 especially the lowest one you can reach. 15:46:51 ASau: I wish such invitation does not seems rude to you, for it requires a lot of works on your side. 15:46:57 Instead you need to learn writing some programming language that is reminiscent of dominant ones. 15:47:17 Perhaps some less dominant ones too. 15:48:24 Yes, you have guessed the main reason why I don't want to write such an article. 15:49:05 It is a lot of effort that is spent mostly for rhethorics. 15:51:08 --- quit: mark4 (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 15:53:43 ASau, why is learning a "dominant" programming language the right thing to do? Or perhaps you should qualify it as dominant for your system's domain? It's been my experience that the best craftsmen own multiple tools and always use the best one for the job. 15:54:20 simple english would be ok, I know it requires hard working, I am writing documentations for my projects and class now :: https://github.com/the-little-language-designer 15:54:23 ASau: but I still hope that you consider to write one, if you do, my email address is xyheme@gmail.com :) 16:04:58 proteusguy: It teaches you the current practice. 16:05:36 In particular, once you learn what is there, you'll understand at least what is hard and what is not. 16:06:28 Respectively, what needs improvement and what needs just using well-known tools and approaches. 16:07:01 ASau: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036.html 16:08:03 ASau, the current practice in programming is to treat coders as factory workers and infra/ops people as the janitor. Not much news there... Better to understand your problem domain and then research which tool shares the appropriate architectural drivers. This doesn't discount the likelihood that the result will be a popular language but what's most important is WHY you picked it. 16:08:19 quote :: in the case of a sharp discontinuity, however, the method breaks down: though we may glorify it with the name "common sense", our past experience is no longer relevant, the analogies become too shallow, and the metaphors become more misleading than illuminating. This is the situation that is characteristic for the "radical" novelty. 16:14:04 proteusguy: programmer's labour is no different than enginneer's, so what? 16:14:54 It is clear that people don't want to rebuild everything from ground level next time material scientists invent something new. 16:15:37 Thus, engineers need to know what is in use currently, and only then they need to know ways to improve it. 16:15:57 xyh: you don't need to believe authorities of the past in everything. 16:16:37 xyh: in particular, not all Dijkstra's ideas turned out good in practice. 16:17:17 xyh: so, you want to elaborate why you cite that particular note. 16:18:28 --- quit: xyh (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) 16:18:55 ASau, you think engineers are factory workers?!? 16:19:30 ASau, I never said people need or want to rebuild everything from ground level. 16:20:37 In industrial setup they are. 16:21:15 ASau, then you are indeed part of the problem. 16:21:52 It doesn't depend on me. 16:22:20 --- join: xyh (~xyh@2001:250:3002:5550:6ea1:cc0f:bcb2:b187) joined #forth 16:22:23 If you think that engineers are a higher cast, you've missed the century. 16:25:24 xyh: in particular, if you want to go into the realm of formal methods, Forth is definitely wrong path to choose. 16:27:36 I suspect that lambda cube was found after EDW. 16:27:42 EWD. 16:28:46 ASau: I do not use forth, I design my language which is influenced by forth. 16:28:51 I am already a person who does not care about how most people care. if I think I need to invent something new, I certainly will not care about industrial applications and public recognitions. 16:28:56 ASau: for example, I do not think that I need to use C++ and java (the are most used languages) about 5 years, and only after then I can design my own language. 16:28:56 ASau, I'm saying that programming is a creative effort far more than a mechanical one. Failure to appreciate that is the cause of most project failures. 16:29:06 --- join: kumul (~mool@adsl-72-50-85-84.prtc.net) joined #forth 16:30:54 --- join: Quozl`_ (~quozl@owl.laptop.org) joined #forth 16:31:20 xyh: there exist other languages in current practice, you can find jobs in Erlang, Scala or even O'Caml. 16:31:42 Still, they are not "Forth-like" or anything. 16:32:00 --- quit: Quozl` (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) 16:32:49 proteusguy: you make the same mistake as many bad engineers do. 16:33:20 Your "creative effort" differs from your "mechanical one" only in the domain. 16:33:44 If it differs, why then "mechanical one" exists still? 16:34:34 Programming is not engineering for one. It's not been around long enough to have matured to that. 16:34:45 Oh, really? 16:35:07 It is there for nearly half a century. 16:35:12 You can certainly apply engineering principles but that doesn't make it engineering. 16:35:35 Well call me again in another century or three and we may have approached it. 16:37:25 Electronics is only like one or two decades older than programming. 16:38:04 Somehow we call them "electronics engineers" rather than "electronics scientists", "electronics artists" or whatever. 16:39:54 Electronics obeys known laws of physics that have been around for hundreds of years. It has known constraints and properties. Programming doesn't have these kinds of barriers for most practical purposes. It's the closest thing to pure abstract creation in the history of mankind and has a failure rate higher than any other industry known to man outside of warefare. 16:41:07 Ever heard of Frederick Taylor? 16:41:51 don't believe so. 16:42:25 If not, then start from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorism :) 16:43:54 you have a point? 16:44:33 --- quit: xyh (Remote host closed the connection) 16:44:52 Yes. 16:44:54 ok he's a process guy. what of it? 16:45:01 --- quit: bedah (Quit: Ex-Chat) 16:45:24 Programming obeys the same production laws like any other production. 16:46:17 There exist known metrics for productivity and they are mostly independent of programming language used. 16:46:40 This makes code reuse very important. 16:47:11 Same applies to reuse of what OO folks call "patterns." 16:47:25 Wow in fact there are absolutely no known methods of objectively measuring a developer's productivity in any meaningful way. Do you consider "scientific management" a science? 16:47:53 It isn't science and never claimed to be. :) 16:47:56 Patterns are heuristics - not prescriptions. 16:48:01 It is engineering discipline. 16:48:04 Is has the word 'science" in it.... 16:48:51 How can they not claim it's a science. That's its name and the text goes on and on about a scientific approach. 16:49:07 It has the word "science" since it is based on empirical studies and scientific method rather than anything out of blue. 16:49:34 In strict terms, it is science, though. :) 16:49:45 Naturally it is not a science, of course, but that just shows how off base they were from the beginning. And now you're denying the very claim that is fundamental to his entire concept. 16:50:06 Your idea of what is science and what isn't is wrong. :) 16:50:26 It is certainly not a science. No real science has the word science in it. Physics and Chemistry are science. Computer science and political science are not. 16:51:36 Falsifiable theories where a single negative example throws it out the window.... an absolute requirement to be considered a science. Not present here. 16:51:40 Following that logic painting and catholicism are sciences. 16:52:06 You keep presuming things about me that you have no evidence for. 16:52:20 Falsifiability is philosophical criterion that doesn't necessary apply. 16:52:31 E.g. Darwinism. 16:52:47 Only applies if you want it to be a science. 16:52:52 Also, physics doesn't follow falsifiability criteria either. :) 16:53:03 Sure it does. 16:53:40 No, it doesn't. 16:53:44 You're just trolling now... 16:53:56 E.g. heat death doesn't stop physicists from using Maxwell's equations. :) 16:54:19 You've stepped into domain which I know far better than you. 16:55:07 ...funny all you've done tonight is demonstrate your lack of knowledge on every subject you've brought up. Again, I expected better of you. 16:55:16 No real scientist uses falsifiability criteria in unrestricted sense. 16:55:47 ASau, that isn't what I said is it? You presume far too much to be taken seriously. 16:56:02 Whatever you think doesn't make you right. :) 16:56:43 Another pointless observation on your end implying a false dichotomy that it in some way repairs your own error. 17:04:17 In my experience, when someone sticks to Popper or falsifiability in general, it usually indicates that one has little or no experience in research work. 17:05:47 You seem to be stuck in academia then if you think that falsifiability is a philisophical position when you're discussing the very foundation of the scientific method! 17:05:55 Most other scientists I communicated to either used verification criteria while admitting Kuhn's theory. 17:07:07 Falsifiability is a philosophical position still. 17:07:44 Besides, it is quite extreme and tells that a person has not read anyone post-Popper. 17:08:54 In scientific and philosophical realm Popper is more like a geek. 17:09:07 Just like CM is in programming. 17:09:46 Once a nice idea that proved to be wrong in long term. 17:12:04 Science is not a democratic election. I'm of the mindset that Feynman followed. I believe he is post-Popper. :) 17:13:25 Either way - you're arguing against yourself now.. I didn't make the claims you're arguing against. 17:13:47 Objectivism is not Popper's property. 17:13:57 It doesn't belong to his theory. 17:14:13 YOu're the only person who keeps evoking Popper. I never did. 17:14:40 Falsifiable theories where a single negative example throws it out the window.... an absolute requirement to be considered a science. Not present here. 17:14:59 This is your reply. :) 17:15:00 That does not depend on Popper. 17:15:15 That IS Popper. 17:16:32 Virtually any post-Popper critic wrote that his idea of falsifying theories is not viable. 17:17:32 You're falling prey to the 3-A's, Authority, Anecdote, and Advertising. I know Popper's big thing is falsifiability but he does not have exclusive ownership of the subject, and that is not the context in which we were discussion what makes science. Perhaps you are claiming that science doesn't demand that it's laws are built upon falsifiable assertions? In which case you resign any credibility to claim to understand what is 17:17:32 science. 17:18:30 Pf. 17:18:46 You have clearly missed your lessons on philosophy on science. 17:19:05 Yes, modern science is not based on falsifiable assertions. 17:19:39 Even modern particle physics uses falsifiability criterion in a quite limited form. 17:19:49 Useful science still does my friend. 17:20:02 What do you call "useful science?" 17:20:23 Biology doesn't care of falsifiability at all. 17:20:27 All models are wrong, some models are useful. 17:20:45 You cannot work with falsifiability at all in biology. 17:20:59 The same applies to chemistry and material sciences. 17:21:01 Well again that turns out not to be the case. The aspects of biology that are hard science very much do. 17:21:48 Ever worked with medical biologists? 17:21:54 OK I'm tired of pointless philisophical points with you. I've got to get back to useful efforts. I think you've already made my point clear enough. Good night. 17:22:32 Yes indeed. Have built several systems in the field - all hard science. Imagine. 17:22:47 Their use of regressions makes no space for falsifiability. 17:24:33 Again I never said that every aspect of the domain requires that everything be falsifiable. But that is the ultimate goal to make predictive assertions that demonstrate a useful understanding and allow work to proceed forward. Do you seriously wanna argue for hours in order to win a point on your willful misinterpretation of a semantic point? 17:25:18 In order to make predictive models, you don't need falsifiability criterion. 17:25:30 There is a thing called intellectual dishonesty. I think you've crossed that point. Good night. 17:25:36 And no serious scientist needs it, indeed. 17:26:15 Tell it to Feynman. 17:26:44 Can you demonstrate that he did use falsifiability criterion in any sensible way? 17:27:23 Note that you need to demonstrate the work where he used it in a form that differs from verificationist. 17:27:49 boring. 17:27:52 ...you have just confirmed my point, alas. 17:28:00 It seems that you have collected a world view based on good-looking yet wrong conceptions. 17:28:08 tangentstorm, yes death by boredom. 17:28:18 ASau, upi 17:28:42 * ASau shrugs. 17:28:57 Whatever, I'm off too. 17:29:01 It's time to do some Java. 17:29:05 and not really on topic. please stick to complaining about how terrible and ill-advised you think any use of forth is when you're trolling in here, ASau. 17:29:05 ASau, you're trolling. No need to demonstrate how incapable you are of conceding a point. 17:29:15 Somehow Forth programmers didn't care of writing probabilistic inference tools. 17:29:52 Oh, right. 17:30:19 It seems that "probabilistic inference" is exactly what is lacking in lexicon of Forth philosophers. :D 17:30:49 The best revenge is living well. I won't be the poor schmuck writing java code this evening. 17:39:04 --- quit: nighty-_ (Quit: Disappears in a puff of smoke) 17:44:42 --- quit: proteusguy (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 17:57:17 --- join: proteusguy (~proteusgu@ppp-110-168-230-122.revip5.asianet.co.th) joined #forth 17:57:17 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy 18:08:28 I really wish mark4 would stop TALKING about banning ASau and just get it the fuck over with. 18:10:05 Hell, I'll volunteer to be banned alongside him as long as he FUCKING DOES IT. 18:11:54 he holds opinions contrary to many here and likes to troll a little, yes 18:12:05 A little? 18:12:07 but people keep arguing with him - so it's not just him :) 18:12:23 s/a little/pretty much all the time/ 18:12:23 His ENTIRE REASON for coming here is to tell people not to use Forth. 18:12:47 He hangs out in a channel for a language he does not like SOLELY to tell people not to use it. 18:12:54 He's not trolling. He's literally insane. 18:13:25 As in if he described this behaviour to a psychiatrist it would be flagged as troubling behaviour. 18:13:55 I hate Java, for example. Do you see me in ##java telling people how terrible a language it is? 18:14:23 I think C++ has caused more damage to software development than anything this side of BASIC. Am I in ##c++ warning people of the mortal peril they're finding themselves in? 18:14:30 No. Because SANE PEOPLE DO NOT DO THIS. 18:14:46 Only crazed motherfuckers with an added dollop of obnoxiousness do that kind of shit. 18:15:01 I swear, he acts like Forth raped his mother. 18:15:11 tell us how you really feel 18:15:18 ;D 18:15:33 Human language lacks the capacity to properly express the utter contempt I hold that shithead in. 18:15:53 i learned recently that he's a maintainer for the forth (have not researched which yet) that free(?) bsd uses for its bootloaded. 18:15:57 "stop using your human language, it sucks" 18:16:19 agreed - try Klingon 18:16:23 phadthai: Please don't mimic ASau. One motherfucker is enough per channel. 18:16:25 or FORTH ;) 18:17:21 i dunno. i've resisted the push to ban him. i was only half paying attention but seemed people were set on trying to change his mind. 18:17:55 This is because people who've only been here for a short time operate on the mistaken assumption that he's speaking in good faith. 18:17:55 (resist the push when i was asked - not trying to stop others from) 18:18:33 They don't have literally YEARS of evidence that he exists here only to troll. 18:18:37 Well tonight's my fault for going along with him. The prior night he seemed on the edge of providing an interesting/useful critique regarding forth as the bootloader for one of the BSD projects and that's what I was (initially) following up on. 18:19:06 proteusguy: He never, ever, not even once, contributes to conversations about Forth. He only exists here to denigrate. 18:19:29 ttmrichter, there have been times in the past when he had useful and ontopic insights into language design. But that wasn't the case tonight. Everything was a pejorative and baseless. 18:19:55 He's in #sml too ... and there, while still an ass in how he communicates, he does not sit in there and use every opportunity to tell people to stay away from SML. 18:20:13 proteusguy: He may have insights into language design. But when I look up, I'm seeing #forth, not #languagedesign. 18:20:36 ttmrichter, forth, if anything, is a language for language design. :) 18:21:05 And he insists, at least in the backscroll I see, that this is not the case. 18:21:24 ttmrichter, you don't have to be right to be insightful. 18:21:39 He does not belong in this channel. He serves no purpose here and he actively stinks up the joint. 18:21:55 ttmrichter, but tonight he was neither. I shouldn't have continued the conversation. my bad. 18:22:37 Next time I see mark4 on, I'm going to challenge him to shit or get off the pot. Either actually ban the motherfucker or admit he lacks the ability, for whatever reason, to do it. 18:22:53 ttmrichter, if there was any useful conversation going on that his trolling was disrupting I might be persuaded but it was otherwise dead. 18:23:05 And why is it constantly dead? 18:23:12 i've offered to help try and be a catalyst instead of banning. since he was being engaged in a (?) productive discussion/argument i didn't. but if i see him "being a dick on the internet" i'll ask him to stop. possible a few /kicks (instead of bans) will help, if/when needed 18:23:14 Hi guys! I just found out about Forth! 18:23:17 ttmrichter, I'm an op. I could ban him. But I won't for this. 18:23:33 Forth is a terrible language and you're a terrible person for liking it. 18:23:37 has disconnected. 18:23:39 :) hahaha 18:23:57 ttmrichter: yeah, i think the "jump on the new joins" may be something we ought to squash - unless handled with more finesse 18:24:04 There is more conversation about Forth in ##embedded than here in #forth. 18:24:07 Ever wonder why? 18:24:37 (Hint: The word "toxic" has come up in conversations about #forth.) 18:24:47 Well I've not ever seen that third line happen. It's always been a kickoff point for someone to jump in and give the newb some useful advice. 18:25:18 ttmrichter, "toxic" really? where & by whom? I don't doubt you but I just haven't seen it. 18:25:18 And yet there's at least three people ##embedded who choose to talk Forth shop there instead of in here. 18:25:31 it's not immediate, no. but we have had some energetic ppl join and not last long. may not be entirely the toxic atmosphere, but it doesn't help 18:25:41 * proteusguy joins ##embedded :) 18:26:00 The two biggest Forth fans in ##embedded are me and tp. 18:26:15 A few others will talk about it on occasion too. 18:26:45 bluekelp: There was a guy from India that I still communicate with by email who was one of those energetic people. 18:27:01 I don't feel #forth has a toxic atmosphere. Try ##python - I *love* python and use it every day but in general those guys in the chat room are complete dicks. And they're the ones FOR python. At least here our clown is clearly biased. Isn't it good to be known by your "enemies"? 18:27:30 I generall prefer to socialize without my enemies hanging around. 18:27:44 ttmrichter, not an option in the free world my friend. 18:28:14 proteusguy: You have a weird idea of what "the free world" entails. 18:28:47 Do you stick around at parties when there's a loud, obnoxious drunkard ranting about the evils of whities/darkies/wimmenfolk/whatever? 18:29:03 ttmrichter, I'm a hard core free speech advocate. And have to protect the rights of those who we disagree with even more carefully than those that we agree with in my experience. 18:29:08 If you're the host of the part do you let that continue because "FREEDUMZ!"? 18:29:17 s/part/party/ 18:29:23 ttmrichter, Not if it's a PRIVATE party. But this isn't a private group. 18:29:37 Fair enough, I guess. 18:29:45 But ... there is a price associated with that. 18:29:55 --- part: ttmrichter left #forth 18:30:00 ASau: do you care to chime in here? why exactly do you hang out here if you're not much of a fan? can you at least try being nicer to people? 18:30:22 --- join: gabriel_laddel (~user@unaffiliated/gabriel-laddel/x-9909917) joined #forth 18:30:43 ttmrichter, man I'm a freedom loving guy surrounded by a bunch of sniveling collectivists at most places I hang out. You just gotta deal and lead by example. (which I failed to do as well this evening) 18:31:33 Anyway I learned more about him than he learned about me this evening. :) 18:32:45 proteusguy: he left the room 18:40:54 in the last year I had far memories of playing with a Forth as a kid; last week I discovered that it was GraFORTH on Apple ][; so for nostalgy/memory-resurection, I setup mess, found ROMS+GraForthII on the azimov archives, and played with it for an hour or so... Then I played with pforth and gforth for about another hour (on NetBSD/amd64, and discovered the fragility of pforth's lack of stack underflow/overflow checking); and by curiosity I ... 18:41:00 ... wondered if there was an active forth channel, so I joined 18:41:42 well in case you missed it, "watch out for ASau. he's mean and will tell you forth sucks." 18:42:20 heh... well I know him from a few other channels 18:42:25 --- join: kumool (~mool@adsl-72-50-85-84.prtc.net) joined #forth 18:42:48 phadthai, it's a semi-active channel. :) Lots of people watching and someone will usually jump in if you ask something or state an opinion. 18:43:15 Yes, we have a pet here but his bark is worse than his bite. Kinda our little forthish mascot. 18:43:58 phadthai, what's the story behind your handle? Are you Thai? I ask because I live in Bangkok. 18:44:18 I'm not, but I like thai food 18:44:38 haha ok.... well who doesn't? :P 18:45:18 :) A few people not used enough to capsaicin perhaps 18:45:48 You from UK then? 18:45:55 --- quit: kumul (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 18:45:56 Canada 18:46:24 that's close, right? ;) <-- US geography education at work 18:46:27 ah ok. So you were playing with GraForthII on an Apple ][ emulator? 18:46:50 I did a bit recently yes, mostly to revive some old memories 18:47:19 I don't have any serious/nonplay forth experience 18:47:29 bluekelp, it is close if you're trying to understand why someone says capsicum when they really mean chili peppers! 18:47:43 and didn't yet implement an interpreter, but I have been tempted in the past 18:47:55 considering the simplicity 18:48:56 phadthai, that's cool. Apple ][ was my first platform to code on. I actually encountered forth there but didn't get what it was til later when I wrote my own forth-like language on a Hero I robot with a 6809 processor. 18:50:01 it also was the first computer I used 18:50:20 phadthai, few things get a person to understand how a computer works than writing their own forth-like system. It is pretty cool. I'd recommend doing so on a small system rather than x86 however. 18:50:26 it also had a softcard, so it was also my gateway to z80 asm after playing with 6502 asm 18:50:43 and to various business stuff of the time like dbase/clipper 18:51:57 yeah I had the CP/M z80 board which gave me 80 column text for writing code. I coded 6502 asm directly in the monitor. Remembered op codes. :) Didn't know what an assembler was until I got my compaq deskpro with masm compilers (and Turbo Pascal 2.0). 18:51:59 yeah I'd imagine forth as something which could be useful to implement an interactive debugger on new hardware and the like 18:52:25 especially if none exists yet, or no toolchain yet 18:52:47 phadthai, Raspberrypi is documented well enough. And there are several examples you can go by already out there. 18:53:47 phadthai, of course the coolest thing is to build an fpga stack based cpu design with forth primitives as your op codes. That's my next spare time project just as soon as I requision some spare time. 18:53:59 The (possibly poor) assemblers I had for 6502 at the time were so slow that I often used the monitor, but I remember having a better assembler and editor on the cp/m/z80 side 18:55:40 I've done some embedded device systems programming before, but mostly on m68k with cross-compiling C toolchain; but I never designed any hardware 18:56:49 68k was a very elegant cpu. very glad I encountered forth on that rather than the 8086. 18:57:29 I also really like that cpu family 18:58:23 support for two stacks built into the cpu. very rare and perfect for forth. orthoganal addressing modes. what's not to love? 18:58:46 I had done some 16-bit real mode x86 stuff with ugly segmented model, it was much nicer with a CPU presenting a 32-bit interface even on a 16-bit bus like the 68000 19:01:13 gotta crash now. good night all... 19:01:19 and yeah, nice instruction set which often requires a single instruction to represent an operation 19:01:31 gn 19:02:15 --- join: darkf (~darkf___@unaffiliated/darkf) joined #forth 19:03:00 convenient for position-independent code too 19:11:34 --- join: saml_ (~saml@cpe-24-102-97-97.nyc.res.rr.com) joined #forth 20:21:44 --- join: xyh (~xyh@2001:250:3002:5550:6ea1:cc0f:bcb2:b187) joined #forth 21:17:57 --- quit: saml_ (Quit: Leaving) 22:48:03 --- quit: johnmark_ (Quit: Leaving) 23:16:21 --- quit: xyh (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) 23:34:19 --- quit: kumool (Quit: Leaving) 23:44:20 --- quit: impomatic (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 23:55:20 --- quit: ehaliewicz (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/15.03.18